4.7 Article

Manifold death: A Volume of Fluid implementation of controlled topological changes in thin sheets by the signature method

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS
卷 467, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111468

关键词

Two-phase flows; Volume of Fluid; Breakup; Topology changes

资金

  1. ERC [883849]
  2. PRACE grant TRUFLOW [2020225418]
  3. CSCS Supercomputer Centre [s1136]
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [883849] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A drawback of the Volume-Of-Fluid (VOF) method is that the breakup of thin liquid films or filaments is mainly caused by numerical aspects. This study presents a novel algorithm to detect and perforate thin structures, improving the convergence of the droplet size distribution and enstrophy.
A well-known drawback of the Volume-Of-Fluid (VOF) method is that the breakup of thin liquid films or filaments is mainly caused by numerical aspects rather than by physical ones. The rupture of thin films occurs when their thickness reaches the order of the grid size and by refining the grid the breakup events are delayed. When thin filaments rupture, many droplets are generated due to the mass conserving properties of VOF. Thus, the numerical character of the breakup does not allow obtaining the desired convergence of the droplet size distribution upon grid refinement. In this work, we present a novel algorithm to detect and perforate thin structures. First, thin films or ligaments are identified by taking quadratic moments of an indicator obtained from the volume fraction. A multiscale approach allows us to choose the critical film thickness independently of the mesh resolution. Then, the breakup is induced by making holes in the films before their thickness reaches the grid size. We show that the method improves the convergence upon grid refinement of the droplets size distribution and of enstrophy. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据